Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

SI-6103 & SI-8592 signatures of mixed in methods should use instantiated type params #178

Open
2 tasks
adriaanm opened this issue Jul 12, 2016 · 2 comments
Open
2 tasks

SI-6103 & SI-8592 signatures of mixed in methods should use instantiated type params #178

adriaanm opened this issue Jul 12, 2016 · 2 comments
Assignees
@adriaanm
Milestone
Backlog

Comments

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

  • SI-6103 Mixin generates method signatures that confuse javac
  • SI-8592 mixin method overrides final method with variation on the reflect.{api,internal} pattern of abstract types implemented by a class
@adriaanm adriaanm added this to the 2.12.0-RC1 milestone Jul 12, 2016
@adriaanm adriaanm self-assigned this Jul 12, 2016
@adriaanm adriaanm changed the title mixin and erasure signature bugs in mixin and erasure Jul 26, 2016
@adriaanm adriaanm changed the title signature bugs in mixin and erasure SI-6103 & SI-8592 signature bugs in mixin and erasure Jul 26, 2016
@adriaanm adriaanm changed the title SI-6103 & SI-8592 signature bugs in mixin and erasure SI-6103 & SI-8592 signatures of mixed in methods should use instantiated type params Jul 28, 2016
@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor Author

This has become less pressing now that we don't mix in forwarders in subclasses, which implies we're not mixing in forwarders with the wrong signature :-) Fixing this properly would require doing (some of) mixin before (some of) erasure (we need more bridges after mixing in methods with sharper (erased) signatures than the (erased) one in the supertrait).

@adriaanm adriaanm mentioned this issue Jul 28, 2016
Closed
@adriaanm adriaanm modified the milestones: Backlog, 2.12.0-RC1 Jul 30, 2016
@adriaanm adriaanm reopened this Jul 30, 2016
@smarter
Copy link
Member

smarter commented Jan 28, 2019

This has become less pressing now that we don't mix in forwarders in subclasses

Not true anymore since -Xmixin-force-forwarders was set to true by default for performance reasons, right ?

@smarter smarter mentioned this issue Jan 29, 2019
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@adriaanm adriaanm

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@smarter @adriaanm